Hammer v Chief Executive, Department of Lands

[1995] QLC 43

[1995] QLC 43

 

  LAND COURT

BRISBANE

26 May 1995

Re:     Appeals against rental valuations -
  Appeals lodged out of time.
  RV94-139/141.

AE Hammer and Others
  v.
  Chief Executive, Department of Lands

Land Act 1962 - Valuation of Land Act 1944

JURISDICTION

(Hearing at Charters Towers)

In these three appeals a question of the jurisdiction of the Court to hear and determine the appeals has arisen through late filing of the appeals in the office of the Registrar of the Land Court in Brisbane.
           In each case decisions on objection to the valuations were issued on 24 February 1994.  Under the Act, an objector has 28 days of that date within which to file a notice of appeal in the Land Court Registry.  In these cases, the appellants elected to file the appeals by post.  They have a private arrangement under which mail is put in a bag at the property and taken to either Bells Creek or Charters Towers.  Mr DA Hammer who handled the matters on behalf of his parents said that he executed the appeals on 20 March 1994 and dated them 21 March, being the date he expected them to be put into the bag for collection and delivery to either the Post Office at Charters Towers or at Bells Creek.  He went to New South Wales on business on 20 March 1994.  The appeals were received in the Registry on 31 March, well outside the period of 28 days which expired on 24 March. 
Mr Bell endeavoured to satisfy the Court that the delay in the filing of the appeals was due to undue delay in the transmission of mail in the ordinary course of post - this being the only statutory relief available for failure to have an appeal in Court within the prescribed time. Refer s.57 Valuation of Land Act. Briefly stated, he was of the opinion that in the ordinary course of post the notices would have been filed in time. However, there is no evidence of proof to this effect. In the subject case, there appears to be two arrangements involved in the process - one being a private arrangement which is followed by what I may describe as an official arrangement. In Seaworld Pty Ltd v. Valuer-General (1978) 5 QLCR 309, the Land Appeal Court held that for mail to get into the ordinary course of post "there must be a handing across or passing across of an item of mail before it can be said that an article is in the transmission of mail". In the context of the subject case, this point would appear to comprise the handing over of the mail bag to an officer of Australia Post either at Charters Towers or at Bells Creek. That date is not in evidence and the date the envelope containing the appeals was stamped at the Townsville Mail Exchange is also unclear. From later correspondence (in answer to the requisition issued by the Registrar) it is noted that the answer was executed on 22 April 1994, was stamped by Australia Post in Townsville on 26 April and was received by the registry on 28 April. The length of the initial process appears to be the one for which the appellants did not provide in lodging their notices of appeal.
           In the circumstances and in the absence of proof to the contrary, I find that the filing of the appeals in the registry out of time was not due to undue delay in the transmission of mail in the ordinary course of post and consequently the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeals.
           Accordingly, the appeals are struck out for want of jurisdiction.

President of the Land Court